Sharing the oil tax bounty

Express-News Editorial Board

Updated 3:10 pm, Thursday, March 7, 2013

Photo: JERRY LARA, San Antonio Express-News

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Oilfield related traffic moves along FM 186 near Carrizo Springs, Texas, Wednesday, March 21, 2012. Traffic is up along most of the roads in the South Texas Eagle Ford Shale play. Jerry Lara/San Antonio Express-News less

Oilfield related traffic moves along FM 186 near Carrizo Springs, Texas, Wednesday, March 21, 2012. Traffic is up along most of the roads in the South Texas Eagle Ford Shale play. Jerry Lara/San Antonio ... more

Photo: JERRY LARA, San Antonio Express-News

Sharing the oil tax bounty

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

The Eagle Ford shale boom has been a blessing for those counties where the drilling occurs, and for surrounding locales. But the boom is stressing local infrastructure and institutions to breaking points.

A savvy Texas would make it possible for local governments to reap enough benefit from this new economic development to help take care of the cost.

And those costs are considerable, for county roads in particular. Big trucks and other vehicles hauling all that is necessary to feed this boom are taxing roads not meant for such high-volume traffic.

The state has the means, through its oil and gas severance tax, to address this.

Recently, DeWitt County Judge Daryl Fowler, in a Q&A for this newspaper's Sunday Opinion section, wrote of trends associated with the boom. Space considerations did not allow for publication of all his remarks.

“This amount of volume represents more than 100 years of traffic on many of our rural roads,” Fowler wrote.

Local tax revenues are up and still insufficient.

Meanwhile, the state last year generated $3.6 billion in oil and gas production tax revenue, according to the state comptroller.

Most Popular

But DeWitt County, in the last fiscal year, Fowler said, received less than $76,000 in overweight axle fees and $26,949 in gasoline tax, clearly insufficient for road building and maintenance needs estimated to be $432 million.

And that's just one county.

It's only fair that some of this oil revenue bounty returns to the counties where production occurs, mindful also that roads in adjoining counties also deserve some consideration.

Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, is sponsoring a bill that would address this. Others will file similar bills.

Uresti's bill would create a fund from the oil and gas tax contribution to the rainy day fund. Counties in need could draw from this for their roads once and then use a steadier stream set up later derived from a small percentage of future proceeds to the rainy day fund, Uresti explains.

Uresti makes the golden goose argument. We can get the oil and gas as long as we have the roads to get to the sites.

Right; it's an investment.

We're mindful that there is a debate about whether the oil and gas tax should be reformed and that dipping into the rainy day fund is no small thing as a matter of principle or procedure. But one goal should be to share the tax benefits of the boom as much as possible with those experiencing the impact and costs.